WORLD WORLDWIDE SOUTH AMERICA BRAZIL - news journal UPDATE - (en) Brazil, OSL, Libera #181 - CRITICISM AND ORGANIZATIONAL PROPOSALS BY JOSÉ OITICICA (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

 The article below was composed of a compilation of articles by José

Oiticica (1882 - 1957), published in the "Trabalhista Section" of the
newspaper A Pátria, in Rio de Janeiro, from June 1923. ---- Criticism of
some anarchist positions ---- We are dispersive, we have no method, we
do nothing and cannot do anything due to the disunity of vast and
successive practical inconsistencies. We live in an incredible lethargy,
due to a lack of understanding of things and, we regret to say,
fanaticism. Here too, the Bolsheviks argue with reason. Example: a
comrade from São Paulo incriminates Edgard Leuenroth for having formed a
closed group with other comrades, that is, a selected group, with a
program of action, commitments made and forced exclusion of those who do
not comply with the agreement made. The accuser claims that such a group
is anti-anarchist! That's admirable! The attitude of some anarchists who
rally against violence in the fight against the bourgeoisie is also
admirable!
Anarchy is the regime of free agreement. I have the right to agree with
others whatever we see fit, as long as our agreement does not harm third
parties. Therefore, if I agree with others to form a closed group, with
a program, commitment, punishments and whatever else we want, nobody has
anything to do with it.(...)
Furthermore, anarchists regrettably confuse decentralism of the anarchic
organization with centralization of anarchic forces in the struggle
against the strongly centralized bourgeoisie.[1]
How to give unity and union to federations? How can we achieve a truly
vanguard body of militants, fireproof and good guides?(...)
The second Workers' Congress proclaimed federalism, but we were unable
to create anarchic federations outside the unions.
All this because we are fanatics of "autonomy", that is,
"non-commitment". Of the "individual license", something anti-anarchic
above all, as Malatesta demonstrated and as the Bologna Congress
emphasized. With such ideas we will fall into individualist anarchism,
the worst kind of quietism and dispersionism that exists.[2]

Proposals for an organizational model
Two measures are urgently needed to intensify anarchic action: selection
of militants and concentration of forces. Only this will give us unity
of action.[3]
We are fighters in a great war. All combatants, if they "understand"
each other to fight, make "commitments", without which there can be no
unity of action. Whoever "understands" others is no longer the master of
their will in its entirety, but has tied it by a few threads to the
agreement made. If the threads are untied, the agreement is broken, if
"there is a disagreement, one gives up the common fight", one runs away
from the fight, one hides from one's companions.
Therefore, the "autonomous" individual is impossible in a combat
"group". If he enters into an agreement with other groups, he has
alienated from himself, for the benefit of the communion, a portion of
his will. If he has any reason for disagreement, he must explain this
reason to the community and promote a review of the agreement. Breaking
the agreement of your own free will is a clear betrayal.
Also talking about federations with entirely autonomous groups is
absurd. To federate is to commit to a written or unwritten "pact", to
voluntarily submit to a collective will, to previously agreed, discussed
and accepted principles. Therefore, the federated groups are "autonomous
within the agreement", according to Malatesta's formula.
Thus, when an individual breaks the agreement in a group, he or she
"disconnects" morally and can (or rather, "must") be intransigently
excluded from the group. Likewise, if the group breaks the agreement, it
leaves the federation and as such can and should be declared dissolved
or outside the federation. Example: a group that will vote or "support"
a candidacy. It is the only way to cut through the "murky waters" and
solidify the anarchic "front."[4]
I think we should separate the organization of the union entirely from
the organization of the anarchists. Their organization naturally aims to
guide the working class through the union, an instrument of direct
action in demands, but the recruitment of militants for propaganda in
the unions and outside them is a separate matter, requiring different
methods and processes.(...)
That's why we want "closed groups", only for activists, with entry
through selection and strict commitments; the "anarchic workers'
sections", that is, workers' centers founded by the "groups" for
propaganda outside the unions.[5]
It is not enough, therefore, to want to be an anarchist and
propagandist. It is important to study a lot, immerse yourself in
theory, and immerse yourself in the ideal. If this training is
irreplaceable to achieve the "theory", the real struggle demands even
more. Long experience, study of unions, constant contact with workers,
knowledge of political and police tricks, a whole difficult practical
science are essential. I therefore consider it obvious that it is
necessary to take into account, in the organization, the distinction
between the grouping of militants and the formation of anarchists
outside the groups. (...) Furthermore, in the union we cannot give an
exclusively anarchic character to workers' action.[6]
Since anarchism has been anarchism, it has preached nothing other than
the direct action of the masses against the bourgeoisie, through
association, through the collaboration of the unions, through strikes,
through sabotage, through all imaginable means. I hope that the
Bolsheviks will not deny this to us and consider direct action a
Bolshevik invention, or an idea of the "master" Marx or the "master"
Engels.[7]
Those, however, who accept the idea of selected groups, in the manner
described, should not waste time. Each group, to be more effective,
should be very small in number, with a maximum of twelve comrades. It is
better to form many small federated groups in a locality, with
principles agreed upon and observed by all, but free in the execution of
the measures taken, than in a single large group with endless
assemblies, idle discussions and the respective appointed committees.[8]
Notes (dates of articles):
1. June 19, 1923.
2. June 22, 1923.
3. June 19, 1923.
4. June 22, 1923.
5. June 26, 1923.
6. June 26, 1923.
7. October 26, 1923.
8. June 26, 1923.

https://socialismolibertario.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Libera_181_set_dez__2024.pdf
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca